College Admissions and the Public Interest

College admissions and the Public Interest B. Alden Thresher

This is available as a free PDF from the College Board. This talks about how college admissions should be organized to most benefit the public. It was written a half century ago. Some of the discussion seems quite current, while other parts seem dated. It remains a challenge to attract some people that could benefit to college. People continue to be attracted to colleges that are not necessarily best for them just because of the names and reputation. It includes some testimonials at the end of college admissions officers. It is still a wake up call to colleges that get lost in the arms race and forget to focus on benefitting society.

Who Gets in and Why: A Year Inside College Admissions

Who Gets in and Why: A Year Inside College Admissions by Jeffrey J. Selingo

This is one of the better explorations of the college admissions process. The author has embedded himself with a few universities (Emory, Davidson and University of Washington). He explores exactly what goes on with the admissions committee. He also covers the history of admissions. The schools are responding to changes in rules as well as working to fill they needs. They are building an appropriate class as well as balancing their budgets. They also need to manage their reputation and rate of admits as well as yield rate.

There is a disconnect between what students think is important and what the colleges care about. Students will stress for hours over essays, but committees will often skim them. They are more interested in the voice and uniqueness rather than the typical "overcoming adversity in sports" essays. A laundry list of activities does not set apart a student. (It is better to show significant involvement.) Even grades and test scores may not guarantee admission if they are not paired with other interests.

Another key aspect is that students are rarely compared with each other. They are typically chosen based on their own merits and how they fit in with a class. Only if there are multiple students from a well-known school will there be some comparison of the students academic experience vs. what was available. Even then, the other factors come into play.

College admissions is a changing game. Lawsuits and regulations are changing how admission committees do their work. The financial age process turns the buyer/seller process upside down. It is an area ripe for innovation. However, regulation and fixed costs have made that difficult. 

Game On: Why College Admission Is Rigged and How to Beat the System

Game On: Why College Admission Is Rigged and How to Beat the System by Susan F. Paterno

College is very expensive today. Efforts to "democratize" college have been appropriated by the "elite" to maintain the status quo. The start of the book is loaded with anecdotes and superficial analysis. She keeps going back to Reagan as the cause for expensive college. (But it was still easy to work your way through college in the 90s, well after Reagan left office.) US News and World Report also is seen as a source of problems. The attitude is that college are almost innocent bystanders who have been "forced" to behave like businesses. 

The criticism of capitalistic influences in student loans glosses over the government side of the issue. Colleges charge ridiculous prices, then provide some "financial aid" packages. Huge loans are offered without any guarantee that the borrower could pay. If it was truly free market, the loaners would have more stake in the game. Would a lender really loan $100,000 for somebody to get a degree that has an average starting salary of $20,000? If the government exited the picture, then the gregarious loans would not be made. This would leave a lot of the most disadvantaged students unable to attend the priciest colleges, and that could be ok. Alternatively, what if funding was unbundled from tuition. You get only a certain amount to borrow. If that covers school, great. If not, go some place cheaper. The author consistently attacks the "free market" forces in education, barely touches on the big problems caused by schools themselves. They are the ones encouraging created the country club and then expecting the government to foot the bill. The for-profit schools have come in to fill a niches that other colleges are lacking, such as catering to working adults. Even as "nonprofit" schools have started similar offers, they are often more expensive than the for-profits.

The author has a few good points, but seems blinded to the big picture. Her kids attended well-to-do suburban LA schools and she works as a college professor. The college admission consultant racket she criticises primarily impacts people in those circles. Despite the faults, American colleges are still respected more than many of the lower-priced foreign counterparts. Why is this so? How can Universities retain their edge without costing a fortune?

The Years That Matter Most: How College Makes or Breaks Us

Paul Tough explores the current world of college education and finds flaws all around. The story of the "welder" who gets a high paying job without going to college? Well, there are some high paying jobs around in big cities. But most of welding jobs are not in the "Super high paying" realm. The jobs also require going to school to become a welder. What about the worry that under-qualified low-income minorities are taking all the good college seats away? Colleges would love to have more low-income minorities. However, the primary "under-qualified" admits are of the "rich and white" variety. While admissions scandals brought attention to people paying thousands to get their kids into college via phony sports resumes, hey were just people trying to do it on the cheap. Many colleges have spots waiting for anybody waiting to donate a few million dollars.
He also debunks plenty of College Board propaganda. Standardized tests tend to benefit the wealthy that are willing to pay for expensive test preparation. Even the free SAT-prep offered by the college board is primarily used by those who need it the least.
Is college worth it? That also depends. The most prestigious colleges tend to lead to the best paying jobs. Even among the ivy league schools, there is a hierarchy of "the best" with the likes of Harvard, Stanford, Princeton and Yale up top. Employers use the caliber of school as a proxy of the best students. (Thus school admissions officers end up making decisions.) Extra circulars are also analyzed, though this often favors the wealthy. Lacrosse is preferable to football.
Even the minority students at elite schools are a mirage. Many of the ethnic minorities are the children of wealthy executives and immigrants. Poor students are likely to be those that attended elite prep schools on scholarship. Schools also work to manipulate the numbers. Students that just qualify for Pell grants are much more likely to be admitted than students that just miss the cut off.
The anecdotes are also enlightening. A student wanted to go to Penn or maybe Princeton as a backup. She got rejected by both. However, she ended up getting into Stanford - a school with a much lower acceptance rate. A master test prep consultant charges $400 per hour, and spends most of the time chatting with the students. He helps them to de-stress and minimize the importance of the test. He also teaches a few tips and tricks - and produces great results. The super-elite colleges spend a lot more per student on education, however, most of this comes from the endowment. The mid-tier schools need tuition money to survive. They play a complicated quantitative game of admissions. They must get the right mix of students that will generate income, while also having enough high-quality students. They dangle enough scholarship money to entice acceptance (and the tuition money that comes with it.) There was also the study that showed that letting poor students know about colleges led to more attending elite colleges that matched their scores. However, when the college board tried to repeat it, nothing much happened. There are other factors (such as family) that prevent poor students from attending the most elite colleges. However, the poor would benefit the most. The quality of college is strongly correlated with lifetime income. Across all incoming income levels, those that attend more elite schools will earn more. Those that come in wealthy will have some advantage, but those that come in poor will see the biggest increase in income. The logical path is to attend to best school you can get in to. However, high-performing poor are more likely to go to a nearby community college or state school (even if they could get a free ride to an ivy)
The college system could be a great equalizer. Instead, it just helps out the haves. What can we do about it?

Notre Dame quarterback booted

Notre Dame's quarterback has left the school. The stories imply that there was some sort of academic or resident life violation. There doesn't seem to be any relevant police report, so we may actually assume he was booted for not being a good student. Imagine that. Colleges often bend over backwards to keep their athletes. The great ones seem to make it back after getting nice sized criminal rap sheets. And academics? Well, as long as they play football, who cares?

It is refreshing to see a school require athletes to behave somewhat like real students. Perhaps this can help the NCAA as athletes are trying to claim they are "professionals" employed by the university.

Now we just have to see what impact it has on the school. The starting quarterback was booted. Another heir apparent had transferred to another school. After the Manti Te'o mess and the debacle of the BCS championship game, wouldn't it be a Hollywood ending if this new team came back and won it all? (Or better yet if they lost a close one to Stanford...)

Jeremiah Masoli

Jeremiah Masoli decides he wants to go to Mississippi, and presto he is admitted to the Park and Recreation graduate program and ready to practice with the football team.
(Interesting: olemiss.com has a prominent like to University of Alabama... Hmmm...)
So what does it take to actually get in to that graduate program? Plenty of programs don't require a GRE and have late application deadlines. (Though perhaps he had been intending to go and had already taken any tests and applied.) Park and Rec does not exactly sound like an academically intensive program, so it is probably not a stretch that he go in.

From the website it shows an application deadline of April 1. Ok. Very likely he missed that one. However, it has "roling" in parens, so that gives them the slack to say "sure you can get in now." The Park and Recreation Management - Health, Exercise Science, and Recreation Management / School of Applied Sciences requirements doesn't provide anything other than requirements, while the department-wide Graduate Handbook mentions that the graduate office has a March 31 deadline and "recommends" a certain grade point average and GRE scores. It also has a mechanism for "provisional admission" for those that don't meet the requirements.
Did Masoli get special treatment in being admitted to the program? Probably. Would a non-football player in equal circumstances also have received similar treatment? Fairly likely also. Masters programs are the "bread and butter" of department revenue. An incremental student that is willing to come in and pay his tuition can help with the departments bottom line, while only causing minimal use of resources. With Masoli playing football, his use of department resources will probably be even less than the average student. From his acounts, he was a pretty smart guy who was even recruited by Harvard before his first run-in with the law. Park and Rec also does not tend to strike one as the most academically competitive of programs. It is not a stretch to think that he may rank among the "more qualified" of applicants. (However, you have to think the only reason he is in the program is because Oregon did not have a similar program.)

This brings up the NCAA rule. Is it fair that a player that graduates can immediately play at another graduate school just because his school doesn't offer a degree? Absolutely. However, it would be even more fair to allow players to go to another school that offers any degree. Just because a school offers a specific degree does not mean it is the one you are interested in. There can be a significant variation in focus, quality and instruction among programs with the same title. Athletes should be free to compete immediately (providing they have eligibility) regardless of where they go or what they study. Sure, it could be abused, but this is the type of abuse the NCAA should want to see. "Schools experience a rash of players graduating early and transferring to other schools." Isn't getting a degree supposed to be the primary focus of the programs after all? This should be rewarded. The NCAA lets players transfer freely if the football program goes under probation. Resuming athletic endeavors because the academic program no longer fits their needs is only fair.

Now on tot he curious case of Masoli. Was Oregon right in dropping him from the team? Absolutely. He may have had a couple cases of being in the "wrong place at the wrong time." Perhaps once would have been forgivable. However, lying about it was perhaps a greater crime. Once he admits to lying, the coach can no longer trust him, and has no choice but to let events speak for themselves. When he was caught with the marijuana, Oregon really had no choice to boot him. He could have claimed some Beaver fans planted it, but nobody would believe him due to his untrustworthiness. The Pac-10 is not the SEC. They actually expect their players to obey the law. If he truly was a good guy that just happened to be running with a bad crowd, then getting booted should be a benefit. It would allow him to go elsewhere and find better friends, thus helping to show his innocence.

The typical player in his situation would probably have dropped out of school and entered the NFL supplementary draft. Masoli, however, finished his degree. Sociology is a real degree, not a tough one like engineering, though not a "fake" one like PE. That he was willing to graduate shows that he is actually somewhat serious in his academic pursuits. You could probably count on one finger the number of players that are booted from a team and eligible to transfer because they graduated. Mississippi did the right thing in letting him walk on to the team. He proved he was able to get things done even in adversity. He had no more chance at Oregon, but showed enough resolution to continue elsewhere.

College Admissions Selectivity Challenge

A Stanford professor determined that, despite perceptions, US colleges are actually much less selective now than they were 50 years ago. The evidence given includes a rise in 'college opportunities' that significantly exceeds the number of high school graduates. However, the top 10% of universities are acknowledged to be much more selective.

What does it mean?

Not much.

A few hundred years ago, a degree from Harvard was probably about as valuable as it is today. Back then, it indicated you were one of the few that actually had a college education (in a day when even a high school education was rare.) Today, the degree indicates you were able to attend one of the most selective colleges in the nation. Having the equivalent of an associates degree in 1810 would have been quite an accomplishment. Today, it might be the difference between upper lower class and lower middle class.

An explosion of post high school opportunities simply means that more education has become a 'requirement' for gainful employment. A few hundred years ago, an illiterate farmer could be 'middle class'. Fifty years ago, you would need at least a high school diploma. Now, some college level education is all but required.

So, yes, you could argue that it is much easier to access a college education now than it was 50 years ago. But, that is comparing apples to oranges. A more appropriate comparison would be between a high school education 50 years ago and a college education today. After all, both could get you to the 'median income'.

Another flaw comes in attempting to compare selectivity of colleges over a large time frame. A large University may have been a small junior college 50 years ago. Is there any relevance in comparing admissions across two totally different institutions?

Today, the most selective colleges tend to produce the highest paid and most influential graduates. The increasing selectivity is thus a significant concern. Arbitrary decisions by an admissions office could have significant impact on students' futures. Looking at overall access to education is of little use without looking at the value of this education.

Stanford Daily Article:
http://www.stanforddaily.com/cgi-bin/?p=1037005